IPCC’s 1990 Temperature Projections – David Evans against Mike Buckley

The following comments by Mike Buckley (referenced here) are more revealing about the state of climate science than any errors on Evan’s part.


  1. Surface Temperatures v lower tropospheric temperatures.

    As a beancounter (accountant) I like to reconcile figures. That is to account for the discrepancies. Jo Nova, Anthony Watts and others have found numerous reasons for the discrepancies. The surface temperature records have many “adjustments” that brings reality into line with the models. Whatever excuses you can conjure up, as an accountant I would say that they fail to offer a “true and fair view”.

  2. Trend lines should not start at the origin.

    So you disagree with standard forecasting? That is you start with the current position.

  3. Trend lines should be curved.

    Agreed. This is for simplicity. See next point.

  4. Trend lines should be further apart.

    Are you saying that the climate models have a wider predictive band of 0.75 celsius over 25 years? If they were straight lines, over a century they cannot get within 3 degrees. If Dr Evans had not simplified, the range would have been much greater.

There is a way of more precisely comparing the models with the actuals. The critical variable is CO2 levels. Therefore we should re-run the models from 1990 with actual CO2 data. By then explaining the variances, we can better achieve better understanding and adjust the models for the future. But there is plenty of evidence that this needs to be done by people who are independent. It will not happen, as the actual rise in CO2 was similar to the highest projections of the time.

The philosopher of science Karl Popper is remembered for the falsification principle. A less stringent criteria is that progressive science confronts the anomalies and gets predictions ever closer to the data. Pseudo-science closes ranks, makes up excuses, and “adjusts” perceptions of reality to fit the theory. Progressive science is highly competitive and open, whilst pseudo-science becomes ever more dogmatic, intolerant and insular.

Adelaide – a decline in extreme heatwaves?

Joanne Nova has posted data from Ian Hill on extreme heatwaves in Adelaide, Australia. To quote

It’s another mindless record used to remind the public to “keep the faith” and recite the litancy:

“Adelaide had it’s hottest start to the year since 1900 Sky news

Picking three particular days out of 365 and comparing them over a century is about as cherry-pickingly meaningless as it gets. But Ian Hill went back through the records to find that not only have there been 79 heatwaves in Adelaide since 1887, but there have been 51 heat-waves that were hotter since 1887.

I have done a bit of number crunching of my own, that is quite revealing. Higher temperatures are meant to lead to more extreme heatwaves. Using Ian Hill’s figures Adelaide is providing an exception. Hill’s definition of a heatwave is 3 or more consecutive days where the maximum temperature exceeds 38oC. I have downloaded the figures and categorised by decade. There are two ways I have analysed this data. First is by the number of heatwaves per decade. Second is the number of days per decade.


There are a number of points.

  1. The temperature data only starts in 1887, so the 1880s are probably more significant.
  2. The current decade might be more significant.
  3. Last decade, beginning 2000 was no more significant than the decades 1890s, 1900s, or 1930s.
  4. The 1990s was no more significant than the decades 1910s and 1920s

Is there, however, a revival of extreme heatwaves in the last twenty years?

Nope. Just a couple of extreme years in 2008 and 2009.